Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Applicants Request for Reconsideration filed 12/22/25 which has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-19 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. No Claims have been added. Claims 1-19 are still pending in this application, with Claims 1, 13, and 18 being independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Referring to claims 9-10, claim 9 recites the limitation "the volume level of the first audio signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Examiner interprets as a volume level of the first audio signal. Claim 10 depends on claim 9, therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Referring to claims 11-12, claim 11 recites the limitation "the volume level of the second audio signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Examiner interprets as a volume level of the second audio signal. Claim 12 depends on claim 11, therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 13, 15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Victor US Publication No. 20120308042 in view of Tornatta et al. US Publication No. 20080192952.
Referring to claim 1, Victor teaches a volume control system, comprising: providing a first audio signal and a second audio signal (Fig. 2: Low Pass Filter provides first signal directed toward subwoofer and second signal directed toward main speakers), a master volume controller (Fig. 2: System Vol sets master volume); the first audio signal and the second audio signal (Fig. 2: System Vol controls volume of non-low frequency output of low pass filter; para 0021: “the audio reproduction control system takes into account the desired master volume level and uses that level on the subwoofer output as a base level”) with a master volume level between a 0% master volume level and a 100% master volume level (para 0022: “25% master volume level… 50% volume level…80% volume level”); a volume control circuit configured to receive the first audio signal (Fig. 2: Subwoofer Vol/SubW Amp receive output from Low Pass Filter) and output a first volume controlled signal, wherein in generating the first volume controlled signal, the volume controlled circuit is configured to amplify the first audio signal (para 0022: “applying the algorithmic gain adjustment to the low frequency signal”), in accordance with user input to the volume control circuit (para 0022: “the amount of gain selected by the user”), if, and only if, the master volume controller is providing the first audio signal at less than the 100% volume level (para 0022: “the gain may be +5 at a 25% master volume level and +9 at a 50% volume level, it may be only +3 at an 80% volume level, and 0 at 100% volume level” – Examiner notes that “0 at 100% volume level” means that no subwoofer amplification will occur at 100% volume level, therefore, an amplified signal is only output if the master volume is below 100%); a first speaker (Fig. 2: subwoofer speaker 50); and a second speaker (Fig. 2: main speaker 20), wherein the first volume controlled signal is provided to the first speaker (Fig. 2: amplified signal from SubW Amp provided to subwoofer speaker 50), and wherein the second audio signal is provided to the second speaker (Fig. 2: signal from Main Amp provided to main speaker 20).
However, Victor does not clearly define the master volume control being at the source unit, but Tornatta et al. teaches a source unit providing a first audio signal and a second audio signal, wherein the source unit has a master volume controller for providing the first audio signal and the second audio signal with a volume level (abstract: “a master amplifier connected to the source of audio programming, the master amplifier providing channelized amplified audio signals at each one of a plurality of channel output connectors”). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have had good reason to pursue the known finite options of when to set master volume, therefore it would have been obvious to try setting the master volume at the source end before splitting of signals for distribution, as in Tornatta et al., as opposed to setting the master volume after the splitting of signals, as in Victor, because the subwoofer processing utilizes the master volume as a base so the master volume would need to be communicated to the subwoofer processing at some point. Setting the master volume before filtering allows the low frequency filtered signal to have already taken the master volume into consideration.
Referring to claim 2, Victor teaches the volume control circuit further comprises a volume control input device for providing the user input (para 0022).
Referring to claim 3, Victor teaches the volume control circuit further comprises a variable volume control input device for providing the user input (para 0022).
Referring to claim 5, Victor teaches the volume control circuit is configured to provide the first audio signal, at an amplification level that is manually adjustable to be different from the second audio signal (Fig. 2; para 0022 – Examiner notes that the volume of the main speakers 20 are adjusted based on the master system volume, which is different than the user-controlled subwoofer volume).
Referring to claim 13, Victor teaches a volume control unit for providing additional control of volume in a first audio signal provided from a source unit to a first speaker (Fig. 2: Subwoofer Vol/SubW Amp provide additional volume control of output of low pass filter and provide output to subwoofer 50), without exceeding a maximum volume level of the first speaker (para 0022: “a subwoofer may be driven such that the master volume level and the applied adjustment do not exceed the capabilities of the subwoofer”), a master volume controller (Fig. 2: System Vol sets master volume) and a maximum volume level of the master volume controller (para 0022: “100% volume level”), the master volume controller controlling the volume of the first audio signal and a second audio signal (Fig. 2: System Vol controls volume of non-low frequency output of low pass filter; para 0022: “25% master volume level… 50% volume level…80% volume level”; para 0021: “the audio reproduction control system takes into account the desired master volume level and uses that level on the subwoofer output as a base level”), the volume control unit comprising: a circuit input for receiving the first audio signal from the source unit (Fig. 2: Subwoofer Vol/SubW Amp receive signal from low pass filter); a volume control circuit for receiving the first audio signal and for generating a first volume controlled signal for the first speaker (Fig. 2: Subwoofer Vol/SubW Amp receive output from Low Pass Filter; para 0021: “the step of applying an algorithmic gain adjustment to the low frequency signal”); a variable volume control input device, wherein the first volume controlled signal is amplified by an amount that is variably selected manually using the variable volume control input device (para 0022: “the amount of gain selected by the user”…“the gain may be +5 at a 25% master volume level and +9 at a 50% volume level, it may be only +3 at an 80% volume level, and 0 at 100% volume level”), and wherein the volume control circuit is configured to amplify the first audio signal if, and only if, the master volume controller is providing the first audio signal at less than the maximum volume level of the master volume controller (para 0022: “the amount of gain selected by the user”…“the gain may be +5 at a 25% master volume level and +9 at a 50% volume level, it may be only +3 at an 80% volume level, and 0 at 100% volume level” – Examiner notes that “0 at 100% volume level” means that no subwoofer amplification will occur at 100% volume level); and a circuit output for providing the first volume controlled signal to the first speaker (Fig. 2: amplified signal from SubW Amp provided to subwoofer speaker 50).
However, Victor does not clearly define the master volume control being at the source unit, but Tornatta et al. teaches a first audio signal provided from a source unit, the source unit having a master volume controller, the master volume controller controlling the volume of the first audio signal and a second audio signal (abstract: “a master amplifier connected to the source of audio programming, the master amplifier providing channelized amplified audio signals at each one of a plurality of channel output connectors”). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have had good reason to pursue the known finite options of when to set master volume, therefore it would have been obvious to try setting the master volume at the source end before splitting of signals for distribution, as in Tornatta et al., as opposed to setting the master volume after the splitting of signals, as in Victor, because the subwoofer processing utilizes the master volume as a base so the master volume would need to be communicated to the subwoofer processing at some point. Setting the master volume before filtering allows the low frequency filtered signal to have already taken the master volume into consideration.
Referring to claim 15, Victor teaches the volume control circuit is configured to provide the first volume controlled signal at an amplification level that is manually adjustable to provide a different volume level between the first volume controlled signal and the second audio signal (Fig. 2; para 0022 – Examiner notes that the volume of the main speakers 20 are adjusted based on the master system volume, which is different than the user-controlled subwoofer volume).
Referring to claim 18, Victor teaches a method of controlling an output volume level of a speaker (Fig. 2: Subwoofer Vol/SubW Amp control volume of output of low pass filter and provide output to subwoofer 50), beyond volume control from a master volume controller of a first audio signal (Fig. 2: System Vol sets master volume; para 0021: “the audio reproduction control system takes into account the desired master volume level and uses that level on the subwoofer output as a base level”), wherein the master volume controller controls the volume level (a master volume) of the first audio signal and a second audio signal (Fig. 2: System Vol controls volume of non-low frequency output of low pass filter; para 0022: “25% master volume level… 50% volume level…80% volume level”; para 0021: “the audio reproduction control system takes into account the desired master volume level and uses that level on the subwoofer output as a base level”), the method comprising: receiving the first audio signal from the source unit at a volume control circuit (Fig. 2: Subwoofer Vol/SubW Amp receive signal from low pass filter), the first audio signal having a power level based on the master volume controller (para 0021: “the audio reproduction control system takes into account the desired master volume level and uses that level on the subwoofer output as a base level”); controlling a volume output by the speaker by generating a volume control output signal that is based on the first audio signal from the source unit, wherein: the volume control output signal comprises the first audio signal without amplification, if the source unit is providing the first audio signal at a 100% master volume level (para 0022: “the gain may be…0 at 100% volume level”); and the volume control output signal comprises an amplified first audio signal in accordance with user input to the volume control circuit, wherein the amplified first audio signal is amplified sufficient to cause the volume output by the speaker to be between the master volume and the 100% master volume when the master volume is less than the 100% master volume level (para 0022: “the amount of gain selected by the user”…“the gain may be +5 at a 25% master volume level and +9 at a 50% volume level, it may be only +3 at an 80% volume level”).
However, Victor does not clearly define the master volume control being at the source unit, but Tornatta et al. teaches a master volume controller of a first audio signal from a source unit, wherein the master volume controller controls the volume level (a master volume) of the first audio signal and a second audio signal, the first audio signal having a power level based on the master volume controller associated with the source unit (abstract: “a master amplifier connected to the source of audio programming, the master amplifier providing channelized amplified audio signals at each one of a plurality of channel output connectors”). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have had good reason to pursue the known finite options of when to set master volume, therefore it would have been obvious to try setting the master volume at the source end before splitting of signals for distribution, as in Tornatta et al., as opposed to setting the master volume after the splitting of signals, as in Victor, because the subwoofer processing utilizes the master volume as a base so the master volume would need to be communicated to the subwoofer processing at some point. Setting the master volume before filtering allows the low frequency filtered signal to have already taken the master volume into consideration.
Referring to claim 19, Victor teaches at least one of: converting the first audio signal from a differential signal to a non-differential signal before manual selection of amplification of the first audio signal; selectively boosting sub-frequency portions of an audio output from the source unit; and selectively boosting sub-frequency portions of the audio output from the source unit without changing full range audio volume levels (Fig. 2: Subwoofer Vol/SubW Amp amplify volume of low-frequency output of low pass filter; para 0022).
Claim(s) 4, 7-8, 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Victor and Tornatta et al., as shown in claims 1 and 13 above, further in view of Katz US Publication No. 20060023898.
Referring to claim 4, Victor and Tornatta et al. do not teach a knob, but Katz teaches the volume control input device is a knob for providing the user input (para 0169). Both Victor and Katz teach volume control devices, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute in a knob, as taught in Katz, for the device of Victor in the system of Victor and Tornatta et al. because each way, the volume can be adjusted by a user.
Referring to claim 7, Victor teaches the volume control circuit is a sub-frequency volume control circuit, wherein the first audio signal is a sub-frequency signal and is provided from a first output of the source unit (Fig. 2: first audio signal is low frequency output of low pass filter), wherein the first speaker is a subwoofer (Fig. 2: subwoofer speaker 50), and wherein the second audio signal is provided from a second output of the source unit (Fig. 2: second audio signal is non-low frequency output of low pass filter). However, Victor and Tornatta et al. do not teach two amplification steps per se, but Katz teaches the volume control system further comprising: an amplifier for receiving the first volume controlled signal from the volume control circuit and for amplifying the first volume controlled signal before the first volume controlled signal is provided to speaker (Fig. 20: power amplifier 157 amplifies output of volume control circuit 154; para 0169: “A main volume control device 160, which is user operated, controls the main volume control circuits 154”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two amplification steps, as taught in Katz, in the system of Victor and Tornatta et al. because one amplification step provides volume control, while the power amplifier provides raw power needed to drive the speaker.
Referring to claim 8, Victor teaches a full-range audio amplifier and provide the second audio signal to the second speaker with further amplification provided by the full-range audio amplifier (Fig. 1: full range signal is sent to Main Amp/Main Speakers 20, as the signal does not get filtered). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use full range speakers/amplifier, as in Fig. 1 of Victor, in Fig. 2 of Victor, in the system of Victor, Tornatta et al., and Katz because many systems include many types of speakers depending on the application, and in some applications such as vehicles and surround sound, including full range speakers in addition to subwoofers, mid-range, and/or high frequency drivers may enhance the user’s listening experience. Katz teaches amplifier to receive the second audio signal from the source unit, and provide the second audio signal to the second speaker with further amplification provided by the amplifier (para 0169). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide additional volume control for additional speakers, as taught in Katz, in the system of Victor, Tornatta et al., and Katz because the speakers “can be individually adjusted”, which leads to more customized sound settings for a user.
Referring to claim 11, Victor teaches to pass the second audio signal through, without amplification, if the master volume level is at 100%, and to boost the volume level of the second audio signal to a desired level between the master volume level and the 100% volume when the master volume level set by the master volume controller is less than the 100% volume level to output the second audio signal with further amplification (para 0022). However, Victor and Tornatta et al. do not teach separate volume controls for different speakers, but Katz teaches a second volume control circuit for receiving the second audio signal to boost the volume (para 0169). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide additional volume control for additional speakers, as taught in Katz, using the master volume/individual volume method of Victor in the system of Victor and Tornatta et al. because the speakers “can be individually adjusted”, which leads to more customized sound settings for a user.
Referring to claim 12, Victor teaches the second audio signal that is amplified is provided to the second speaker, and wherein the second audio signal is further provided to a third speaker either (1) directly, or (2) via a full range audio amplifier (Fig. 2: non-low frequency output of low pass filter provided to Main speakers 20 -Examiner notes that Main speakers 20 comprise multiple speakers, therefore, the signal will be provided to at least a second and third speaker, as claimed) and Katz teaches the second audio signal that is amplified by the second volume control circuit (para 0169). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 11.
Referring to claim 14, Victor teaches the variable volume control input device is a knob (para 0169). Both Victor and Katz teach volume control devices, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute in a knob, as taught in Katz, for the device of Victor in the unit of Victor and Tornatta et al. because each way, the volume can be adjusted by a user.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Victor and Tornatta et al, as shown in claim 1 above, further in view of Brunet et al. US Publication No. 20180192192.
Referring to claim 6, Victor teaches the volume control circuit limits amplification of the first audio signal (para 0017: “the algorithmic adjustment also provides an upper limit to the subwoofer volume level such that the master volume level and subwoofer volume level never combine to an amount that causes the subwoofer 50 to be overdriven”). However, Victor and Tornatta et al. do not specify what the limiting is based on per se, but Brunet et al. teaches limits amplification based on a set voltage threshold selected to protect the first speaker (para 0080). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to limit the amplifier based on predetermined voltage limits, as taught in Brunet et al., in the system of Victor and Tornatta et al. because it helps to “ensure safe operation of the loudspeaker for mechanical protection.”
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Victor, Tornatta et al., and Katz, as shown in claims 1 and 7 above, further in view of Bray US Publication No. 20100080403.
Referring to claim 9, Victor teaches the circuit is configured to pass the first audio signal on to the amplifier, without amplification, if the master volume level is at 100%, and wherein the circuit is configured to boost the volume level of the first audio signal to a controllable level between the master volume level and the 100% master volume level when the master volume level set by the master volume controller is less than the 100% master volume level (para 0022). However, Victor, Tornatta et al., and Katz do not teach a boost circuit per se, but Bray teaches the volume control circuit is a boost circuit (para 0011). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. Victor teaches a base device, volume control to amplify sound, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Bray teaches a comparable device, volume control circuitry, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention by using a boost circuit. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention could have applied the known technique of using a boost circuit, as in Bray, in the same way as to implement volume control of Victor in the system of Victor, Tornatta et al., and Katz and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the volume control circuitry of Victor could be implemented by a boost circuit.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Victor, Tornatta et al., Katz, and Bray, as shown in claims 1, 7, and 9 above, further in view of Nankivil US Patent No. 4888477.
Referring to claim 10, Victor teaches limit amplification (para 0017: “the algorithmic adjustment also provides an upper limit to the subwoofer volume level such that the master volume level and subwoofer volume level never combine to an amount that causes the subwoofer 50 to be overdriven”). Bray teaches the boost circuit (para 0011). However, Victor, Tornatta et al., Katz, and Bray do not teach an inverting buffer amplifier, but Nankivil teaches circuit comprises an inverting buffer amplifier and wherein the inverting buffer amplifier is configured to limit the amplification above a predetermined threshold voltage level (Column 3, Lines 3-4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a unity gain amplifier, or inverting buffer amplifier, to limit the amplifier based on predetermined voltage limits, as taught in Nankivil et al., in the system of Victor, Tornatta et al., Katz, and Bray because it helps to keep the system at “safe” levels.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Victor and Tornatta et al, as shown in claim 13 above, further in view of Katz and Brunet et al.
Referring to claim 16, Victor teaches the volume control circuit is a sub-frequency volume control circuit, wherein the first audio signal is a sub-frequency signal and is provided from a first output of the source unit (Fig. 2: first audio signal is low frequency output of low pass filter), wherein the first speaker is a subwoofer (Fig. 2: subwoofer speaker 50), and wherein the second audio signal is provided from a second output of the source unit (Fig. 2: second audio signal is non-low frequency output of low pass filter), wherein the sub-frequency volume control circuit limits amplification (para 0017: “the algorithmic adjustment also provides an upper limit to the subwoofer volume level such that the master volume level and subwoofer volume level never combine to an amount that causes the subwoofer 50 to be overdriven”).
However, Victor and Tornatta et al. do not teach two amplification steps per se, but Katz teaches a volume control system further comprising: an amplifier for receiving the first volume controlled signal from the volume control unit and for providing the first volume controlled signal to the speaker with further amplification provided by the amplifier (Fig. 20: power amplifier 157 amplifies output of volume control circuit 154; para 0169: “A main volume control device 160, which is user operated, controls the main volume control circuits 154”).
However, Victor, Tornatta et al., and Katz do not specify what the limiting is based on per se, but Brunet et al. teaches limits amplification based on a set voltage threshold selected to protect the subwoofer (para 0080). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to limit the amplifier based on predetermined voltage limits, as taught in Brunet et al., in the unit of Victor, Tornatta et al., and Katz because it helps to “ensure safe operation of the loudspeaker for mechanical protection.”
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Victor and Tornatta et al., as shown in claims 13 and 15 above, further in view of Nankivil.
Referring to claim 17, Victor teaches the volume control circuit (para 0022) and limit amplification (para 0017: “the algorithmic adjustment also provides an upper limit to the subwoofer volume level such that the master volume level and subwoofer volume level never combine to an amount that causes the subwoofer 50 to be overdriven”). However, Victor and Tornatta et al. do not teach an inverting buffer amplifier, but Nankivil teaches circuit comprises an inverting buffer amplifier and wherein the inverting buffer amplifier is configured to limit the amplification above a predetermined threshold voltage level (Column 3, Lines 3-4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a unity gain amplifier, or inverting buffer amplifier, to limit the amplifier based on predetermined voltage limits, as taught in Nankivil et al., in the unit of Victor and Tornatta et al. because it helps to keep the system at “safe” levels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in the last paragraph of page 11 to the top of page 12 of the remarks:
“Victor discloses "an automatic adjustment of subwoofer volume leels relative to the main audio system volume and more specifically, to an improved algorithm control method for varying subwoofer volume..." [0002]. Specifically, Victor discloses a system and method having a software/firmware algorithm that automatically applies a non-linear adjustment to the subwoofer audio output. This protects the subwoofer when the main audio system volume increases to a point that it would otherwise endanger the subwoofer. [0016]-[0017] Victor does not disclose a volume control circuit that amplifies a signal going to the subwoofer based on "user input" nor a circuit that only applies the "user input" to amplifying if the first audio signal is less than the 100% master volume level.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has completely ignored the teaching of Victor cited by the examiner in the rejection above regarding user control. Para 0022 states “the amount of gain selected by the user”, as well as “the user adjusts the subwoofer at +5”. Therefore, the amplified signal going to the subwoofer is indeed based on user input, as taught in Victor.
Applicant states in the last paragraph of page 12 to the top of page 13 of the remarks:
“Thus, Victor and Tornatta, alone or in combination, fail to disclose all of the elements of amended independent claim 1. Claims 2-12 are allowable for similar reasons in addition to their own novel features. For example, Victor and Tornatta, alone or in combination do no disclose the "volume control input device for providing the user input" of claim 2, the "variable volume control input device for providing the user input," of claim 3, "the volume control input device is a knob for providing the user input," of claim 4, or an "amplification level that is manually adjustable," of claim 5.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, as explained above, Victor does teach user input, as in para 0022. Second, Examiner does not rely on Victor and Tornatta to teach a knob. Instead, Examiner relies upon Katz to teach a volume control knob. However, Applicant has failed to even mention the teaching of Katz.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A FALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Wednesday, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on (571)272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE A FALEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693